[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@m...> wrote: > How useful does everybody think the Loglan words are? I started out with > the notion that to should be equivalent to loglan le, ti to la, and te > simply a noun marker. We could designate ta as = to lo, and let te also > serve to mark the indefinite. There's something vaguely unaesthetic about the mass description particle "lo", but J.C. Browne thought it was important to have so who am I to argue? I do think that noun phrases have to be marked somehow, so "te" can serve as the indefinite or simply be the default marker when nothing else seems to apply. I also still like Garrett's "da", the "indefinite to you but definite to me" article, because it's complicated to convey the idea without such an article and the construct is so frequent. "to" ~ 'definite' "ti" ~ 'named' "te" ~ 'indefinite' "ta" ~ 'mass' "tu" ~ 'indefinite/definite' (is "tu" already taken?) I have a feeling that more article differentiation than this will be hard for people to learn. Maybe just because it's hard for me. It just occurred to me, "ta" might work well for abstract stuff. It would seem weird to say '"to" honesty is the best policy', but "te" wouldn't be right either. 'The general concept of honesty...', 'Mr. Honesty...' is what we're talking about, and "ta" seems to fit that. ----Krawn